Gilson, Inc. and Gilson S.A.S. v. Harvest Technology Group Inc.
Claim Number: FA0902001248882
Complainant is Gilson,
Inc. and Gilson S.A.S. (“Complainant”),
represented by Mark J. Diliberti, of Foley & Lardner LLP, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Harvest Technology Group Inc (“Respondent”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <pipetteman.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 20, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 23, 2009.
On February 23, 2009, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <pipetteman.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On March 3, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 23, 2009 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@pipetteman.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 27, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <pipetteman.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PIPETMAN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <pipetteman.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <pipetteman.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Gilson, Inc. and Gilson S.A.S., is a leader in the manufacture of pipettes under the PIPETMAN mark. Complainant’s sales exceed 200,000 units annually, and reached revenues of over $20 million in 2002 and 2003. Complainant has registered its PIPETMAN mark, and various other such marks, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,080,818 issued January 3, 1978).
The disputed <pipetteman.com> domain name was registered on December 21, 2004, and does not resolve to an active website. Previously, the disputed domain name resolved to one of Complainant’s competitors.
Upon Complainant’s request that Respondent transfer the disputed domain name, Respondent refused and offered to sell the disputed domain name for $500.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant has set forth sufficient evidence of its rights in the PIPETMAN mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.").
The disputed <pipetteman.com> domain name contains the PIPETMAN mark and adds the letters “te” to the middle of the mark, and the generic top-level domain “.com” to the end of the mark. The Panel finds that neither of these alterations creates a meaningful distinction. The added letters do not render the disputed domain name phonetically different from the mark, and the addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant under the Policy. Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Peppler, FA 103437 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 22, 2002) (“The word “quest” and “crest” are similar in sound and are phonetically similar and thus these two words may be considered confusingly similar. Therefore, confusing similarity exists between <mapcrest.com> and Complainant’s MAP QUEST mark.”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Because Complainant has successfully asserted a prima facie case supporting its allegations, Respondent receives the burden to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent offers no evidence to suggest that it is commonly
known by the disputed domain
name. The only evidence by which the
Panel may peruse derives from the Complaint and the WHOIS domain name
registration information. However, the
registrant of the disputed domain name is listed as “Harvest Technology
Group Inc.,” and Complainant has asserted
that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v.
Taylor, FA
173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion
that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be
rejected); see also Wells Fargo & Co.
v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA
198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information
for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate
Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
The disputed domain name
previously resolved to a website for a competitor of Complainant until
Complainant submitted a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent. The Panel finds that this prior use fails as
a bona fide offering of goods
or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu,
FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of
[Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s
goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that
the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering
of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the
respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered
services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks).
The disputed domain name does not
currently resolve to an active website.
The Panel finds that this likewise fails as a bona fide offering of goods or services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. Malgioglio,
D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in
the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where the respondent merely
inactively held the domain name); see
also TMP Int’l, Inc. v.
Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“[T]he Panel
concludes that Respondent's [failure to make an active use] of the domain name
does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Finally, the Panel finds that
Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain name for $500, which is
over-and-above the registration costs for the disputed domain name,
demonstrates additional evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate
interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding
that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than
its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that the respondent had no
rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name); see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v.
Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007)
(“An attempt by a respondent to sell a domain name to a complainant who owns a
trademark with which the domain name is confusingly similar for an amount in
excess of out-of-pocket costs has been held to demonstrate a lack of legitimate
rights or interests.”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s willingness to sell the
disputed domain name for an amount in-excess of the registration costs
demonstrates a primary intent to sell the disputed domain name, and therefore
evidences Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik
Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad
faith where the respondent offered domain names for sale); see also Banca Popolare Friuladria S.p.A. v. Zago,
D2000-0793 (WIPO Sept. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered
the domain names for sale).
Moreover, that the disputed domain name previously resolved
to a website of Complainant’s competitor demonstrates an
intent to disrupt Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that Respondent has
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA
198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a
competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of
registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for
Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”);
see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes
that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s
educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
In addition, Respondent’s previous use of the disputed
domain name to resolve to a website of a competitor indicates a desire for
commercial gain by Respondent. This gain
was achieved by the likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s endorsement or
sponsorship of the confusingly similar disputed domain name and resolving
website. The Panel finds that Respondent
has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See Allianz
of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA
680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users
searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll,
FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent
used the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a
direct competitor of the complainant).
Finally, the current inactive use of the disputed domain name exhibits additional evidence to the Panel of Respondent’s registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda. v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (“Mere [failure to make an active use] of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner’s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale.”); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <pipetteman.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
__________________________________________________________________
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 10, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum